DVML: Lost in transaction II (flatscreen TVs)

Received from Lee Vandervis
Thursday, 3 April 2014 9:37 p.m.

Interesting to note how little of the below ended up in the ODT story!

—— Forwarded Message
From: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 04:48:04 +0000
To: Lee Vandervis
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC], Terry Davies [DVML]
Subject: LGOIMA response

Dear Councillor Vandervis

Please find attached the response in relation to your LGOIMA request dated 5 February 2014 along with a copy of the release being forwarded to the ODT.

Kind regards
Kim

Kim Barnes
Marketing & Communications Manager [DVML]

.
Attachments
ClrVandervis310314
Samsung-TV-invoice-1
Samsung-TV-invoice-2
Media Release 310314

—— End of Forwarded Message

█ Cr Vandervis’ reply, a further LGOIMA request:

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:17:25 +1300
To: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC], Terry Davies [DVML], Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Conversation: LGOIMA response
Subject: Re: LGOIMA response

Dear Kim

Thank you for finally providing me with a response. 8 weeks for this response is unacceptable however and the excuse given that “the request is for a large quantity of official information or necessitates a search through a large quantity of information” is not credible.

The answers you have provided raise further questions as follow, to which I expect answers within a normal LGOIMA timeframe:

1 – Who decided to buy the first 94 stadium TVs and on what advice?
2 – Did DVML realise at the time they bought the new stadium TV software package that these 94 TVs were incompatible?
3 – What “increased revenue” has resulted from purchasing the newer 165 TVs and stadium TV software package?
4 – What has been the total cost of the stadium TV software package, the 165 TVs and associated installation costs? Please itemize.
5 – Who at the stadium was responsible for keeping the records referred to in “Unfortunately no record has been found of these actions or conversations.”
6 – 7 of the 94 TVs have been “Discarded due to being damaged”. Under what circumstances have so many TVs been damaged and who has been held responsible?
7 – Please forward copies of original paperwork confirming payments for stadium TVs by staff members, and payments by DVML Chair Sir John Hansen and DVML Director Peter Stubbs.

Kind regards,
Cr Lee Vandervis

—— End of Forwarded Message

█ Cr Vandervis sent Kim Barnes’ email with attachments to Chris Morris [ODT] with this cover message:

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:33:30 +1300
To: Chris Morris [ODT]
Cc: Nick Smith [Allied Press Ltd]
Conversation: LGOIMA response
Subject: FW: LGOIMA response

Hi Chris

Again as with DVML purchase of Turf Grow Lights which Councillors had decided were not to be bought, DVML disappoint at every turn in their spending and disposal of so many TVs.
They have taken an unacceptable 8 weeks to respond to my request to account for Stadium televisions whereabouts and to provide original purchase invoices.
It appears that they wish to blame an unidentified group or individual for buying the original 94 ‘old technology’ stadium TVs which they claim were unsuitable and that they have bought 165 newer TVs which are an “essential tool in any stadium”. I wish to know who decided to buy the first 94 TVs and on what advice, and whether DVML realised at the time they bought the new software package that these 94 TVs were incompatible.
The 165 newer TVs costing $145,000+ are claimed by DVML to “provide increased revenue opportunities” because they can be operated by a ‘Cisco Stadium Vision software package’ allowing individual imaging.
DVML claim to have gone through an involved process to determine the value for sale of the first 94 ‘outdated’ TVs, but “Unfortunately no record has been found of these actions or conversations.”
28 of the original 94 TVs continue to be used around the stadium making a total now of 193 stadium TVs, more than double the original number.
7 of the 94 TVs have been “Discarded due to being damaged”. Under what circumstances have so many TVs been terminally damaged and who has been held responsible?
Sales of the original TVs have been made “to staff and two DVML board members, Sir John Hansen and Peter Stubbs”. I have asked to see original paperwork confirming payments by staff members, and payments by DVML Chairman Sir John Hansen and Board Member Peter Stubbs.

My request for confirmation of stadium TV whereabouts was made in response to public questions to me concerning purchasing accountability at the stadium.

I look forward to getting further answers to more questions raised by DVML’s unacceptably slow response.

Kind regards
Cr Lee Vandervis

—— End of Forwarded Message

DVML Letter (page merge) clrvandervis310314

Media Release 310314

Related Post and Comments:
3.4.14 DVML: Lost in transaction (flatscreen TVs)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Advertisements

20 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, DCHL, DVL, DVML, Economics, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

20 responses to “DVML: Lost in transaction II (flatscreen TVs)

  1. As others have noted, suddenly (in the quiet of Stadium TV stardom) Mr Terry Davies is naming names for acts he wants to attract to the Fubar, and continues his “B grade” put-down of the corporate entity “Elton John”. How stupid is this in Davies’ first weeks of business – a communication Klutz (see also his media release in the above post). I’m not sure the use of A and B grade rankings normally reserved for sports competitors is a useful selling point to promoters representing overseas entertainers. Could be wrong.

    ### ODT Online Fri, 4 Apr 2014
    Dunedin chasing Katy Perry, the Eagles
    By Chris Morris
    Rock legends the Eagles and pop star Katy Perry are both being targeted by the new head of Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium. Terry Davies yesterday told the Otago Daily Times his staff were working to secure the signatures of the United States-based music acts for concerts this year.
    Read more

    • Hype O'Thermia

      David Davies, with a proven track record and enthusiasm for the new task, the new stadium, was intelligent enough to comprehend the real-life situation minus bullshit.
      Terry Davies with a recent track record of leaving a promotional job to help his kids start a business (was that like “leaving to spend more time with my family?) and a gob you could drive a Hitachi EX3600-6 excavator* through, is rabbitting on as if all that’s needed to get great acts for the Fubar is putting some effort into attracting them.
      Ri-i-i-ight.
      His predecessors were too dumb and too idle to think of that.
      Aren’t we lucky SuperTerry came along just when we need him most to rescue the council’s collossal crock!
      Watch debt shrink, watch your rates bills stay the same year after year until they match the puny increases in ratepayers’ incomes over the last few years.
      Start now collecting documentation of his miracles for that happy day, it’s what the Vatican demands before it considers any candidate for beatification.
      *photo at http://www.odt.co.nz/regions/otago/130076/new-toy-boys-macraes

  2. Hype; hold that thought. That digger would be ideal if and when the time comes to demolish the stadium.

  3. We also need that super size digging machine for extracting historical paperwork to date from Farry Archives and the double-act DVML/DVL Clown Brothers for the what will be the largest Menchie’s-inspired entertainment venue in town, the harbourside ‘DCC Circus Maximus Stadium’. Who needs KatyP when we’ve already got the Mouth, class act TerryD who is about to host…. No wait…. THE ROYALS.

    Are William and Kate A or B grade?

  4. Another ripping yarn from JimmyJones in reference to the $20 million (or so) pa debt generated ‘across the board’ (the English language is so quaint) by the Circus Maximus encumbrance.

    http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/293054/stadium-costs-predictable-so-why-surprise-now#comment-55476

  5. Anne Elliot

    What I am annoyed and curious about is:

    1) Did the DVLM Board have the mandate to authorise spending on a different system that would require the purchase of new TVs?

    2) Did the DVML Board have the authority to buy not only replacement TVs but a further 71 new TVs?

    DVML’s record keeping is abysmal and the audacity to seemingly present invoices for payment without anyone worrying about budgets and detailed invoicing arrogant, showing the usual sense of entitlement that we are now so used to.

    What spin to claim that the original 94 TVs were “outdated” so soon and that the new system was “an essential tool in any stadium” without any budget or arguments to show its value.

    Grrr.

  6. Peter

    For far too long DVML and the CST have been a law unto themselves. And now we are paying the price. I hope with the stadium review they are wound up. They deserve nothing less for their arrogance and incompetence. You cannot expect anything better when you have the wrong people in what is arguably a wrong place. Both organisations have encouraged, by the way they were set up, trough feeding.

  7. ODT 5.4.14 Letter to editor (page 34)ODT 5.4.14 (page 34)

    Alistair Broad is married to Cr Hilary Calvert.

  8. Peter

    A very succinct letter from Alistair. What happens now?

    • I guess we wait for the DVML reply to Cr Vandervis’ second LGOIMA request.
      Presume Cr Calvert is also on the case.
      Not sure if ODT is still in pursuit, what with The Royals and all.

  9. The ball lies fairly and squarely in the councilors’ court. Cr Vandervis has served, will it be played out to a proper conclusion, or will Umpire Cull call it a net ball, adjourn for a “cuppa” and back to denial business as usual? I know where my money lies.

  10. I’ll put the jug on.

  11. Two sugars please and no milk.

  12. ben picard

    An ongoing load of garbage from highly paid “employees” who are not in the slightest bit concerned about expense and cost to the ratepayers.
    Good to have Lee on board to rattle the scoundrels.

  13. Hype O'Thermia

    Ben, don’t you realise Lee Vandervis is a Troublemaker, a Stirrer, Negative and a Naysayer?

    Outside Cull & Sheeple circles he is increasingly being seen as that rarity, a councillor on the side of ratepayers, prudent stewardship and soundly based decisions. I wonder why Cull & Co find that so threatening that they take every opportunity to badmouth him?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s